SPRINGFIELD -- Illinois Senate President John Cullerton on Wednesday tossed cold water on the idea of reducing future pension benefits for current state workers, but House Speaker Michael Madigan appeared to forge ahead anyway.

CHRIS WETTERICH

SPRINGFIELD -- Illinois Senate President John Cullerton on Wednesday tossed cold water on the idea of reducing future pension benefits for current state workers, but House Speaker Michael Madigan appeared to forge ahead anyway.

“We’ve asked our staff to do research on it,” Cullerton, D-Chicago, said in an interview. “I’m pretty clear that it would be unconstitutional.”

However, Cullerton left open the possibility of the Senate considering a bill that comes over from the House.

“We’re not going to initiate a bill in the Senate,” he said. “I’d vote against the bill in the Senate. If the House passes a bill and the speaker wants it to be called … we’ll certainly talk.”

Madigan, D-Chicago, told the House in a speech Tuesday that changing future benefits for current employees is a possibility.

GOP ready

Sara Wojcicki, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said Republicans are ready to participate in a working group Madigan told Cross he will create.

But Madigan spokesman Steve Brown declined to confirm whether such a panel would be created or say how many members it would have or whether senators would be invited. He did confirm that Cross and Madigan met on Wednesday.

Cross has introduced a pension bill that would allow employees to choose among three retirement plans. They could stay in the current plan, but contribute more to it; they could choose to participate in the second-tier plan that passed last year, which has reduced benefits for those hired after Jan. 1; or they could participate in a new 401(k)-style defined contribution plan in which the state would match employees’ contributions.

If a working group is set up, Cross “won’t push to move his bill at this moment,” Wojcicki said. “He believes the bill is a starting point for discussions. The speaker suggested all four caucuses would have somebody there.”

State Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, said he, too, believes there are constitutional questions with changing future benefits for current employees. However, he said the legislature perhaps could change benefits for a single group of public employees -- maybe judges or legislators -- as a test case. Presumably, a legislator or judge would sue and the case would wind its way through state courts to determine whether the idea passes constitutional muster.

“If it’s unconstitutional, then it’d be a moot point,” Bomke said. “Since the judges are ruling on their own case … it’d be interesting.”

Limited test case unlikely

Cullerton is aware of the idea, but supporters of further pension reform have ruled it out, he said.

“We met with lawyers from the Civic Committee (of Chicago),” Cullerton said. “They would want to have the whole thing, the whole enchilada. That would be the only way that they would feel it’s a test case.”

The Civic Committee and state business interests have produced legal analyses that say changing future benefits for current employees is legal as long as employees retain the benefits they have earned to date.

The debate occurs at a time when the state’s pensions are $70 billion in debt after decades of underfunding by legislatures and governors of both parties.

The office of Gov. Pat Quinn declined to weigh in on the issue. A spokeswoman said the governor is always willing to meet with legislators who have ideas, but in the past, Quinn has stridently opposed the idea.

“You have to abide by the constitution,” he said in October. “There are some great newspapers, probably the (Chicago) Tribune, who think you can just go in there and violate the constitution with impunity. The words are plain.”

Lawmakers passed and Quinn signed a bill in 2010 reducing pension benefits and extending full retirement age for most state workers, teachers, university employees, judges and teachers to age 67.

“The governor is proud of the historic pension reforms that we’ve already enacted,” spokeswoman Annie Thompson said. “Obviously we recognize there’s a lot of work still to be done.”

Chris Wetterich can be reached at (217) 788-1523.

Article 13, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution

“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”

Area lawmakers comment on pension proposals

*State Rep. Wayne Rosenthal, R-Morrisonville

“These state workers and state employees – this is what they were promised. I think those are the things we need to maintain. If the state had lived up to their obligations … they’d (pensions) be 65 or 66 percent funded. It’s not a problem caused by the employees.”

“There’s two ways to change that. You can have a constitutional convention. Or the state goes bankrupt and defaults on pensions.”

Brauer conceded that both are unlikely.

“We have a serious situation and it needs to be addressed, but the proper way to do that has yet to be discovered.”

*State Sen. Sam McCann, R-Carlinville

“I’m not going to hypothesize about a hypothetical bill. We just want to make sure whatever might be done after everybody’s got a seat at the table … we need to make sure it can withstand a possible constitutional challenge.

“I’m a building contractor by profession. I live and die by the terms of the contract. I take that very, very seriously.”